DDonald Trump has long promised his evangelical base that he would repeal the Johnson Amendment and allow churches and other nonprofits to engage and donate to political campaigns, but now that path is clear. It’s now clearer than ever.
The Johnson Amendment, a tax code provision dating back to 1954, prohibits certain tax-exempt nonprofit organizations from making political endorsements or providing financial support to political campaigns. Experts say that if the next president succeeds in reversing this policy using any of the several methods available, it could have a significant impact in opening up the flow of dark money into politics. states.
“It’s going to have as big an impact as Citizens United, if not more,” said Andrew Seidel, a constitutional lawyer and expert on Christian nationalism. “I don’t think people are quite ready for a country where churches can accept billions of dollars in tax-deductible donations and then turn around and use that money for partisan politics. .”
President Trump, who is likely to win narrow majorities in both the U.S. House and Senate, has multiple ways to challenge the provision. He could push Congress to take legislative action. He could try to roll back some of the provisions through administrative action, but that approach would likely be subject to litigation. Or it could involve the Justice Department, which has vowed to politically mobilize a major ongoing Texas case that threatens the law.
During President Trump’s first term, he failed to fulfill his promise to repeal the amendment. Congress has failed to reverse the restrictions, and President Trump has issued an executive order addressing the issue, urging the Treasury to be tolerant of clergy’s political speech “to the extent permitted by law.” I just made a recommendation to the ministry.
Now, with a lawsuit filed in Texas slowly making its way through the courts, President Trump has new tools to chip away at legal limits on the church’s political activities. The complaint, filed with the Internal Revenue Service by a national religious broadcaster, two Texas churches, and Intercessors for America, a group whose mission is to “require godly government,” alleges the Johnson Amendment is unconstitutional. is seeking certification.
The report states that churches are subject to a “uniquely discriminatory position” under tax law, and that the IRS “operates in ways that disadvantage conservative groups and conservative religious groups” in enforcing the law. “I do,” he claims.
The Johnson Amendment, named after its author, Lyndon B. Johnson, is a tax code amendment designed to prevent certain nonprofit organizations from “participating in or intervening in (or against) political campaigns.” Inserted in section 501(c)(3). ) candidates for elective public office.” The law also notes that “contributions to political campaign funds” are “clearly in violation” of this provision.
Some churches are already flaunting their legal obligation to refrain from endorsing political candidates, a trend documented by The Texas Tribune. Repealing the Johnson Amendment would allow churches to go further, including donating to partisan causes. Such arrangements receive little public oversight because churches, unlike other nonprofit organizations, are not required to file 990 forms with the IRS disclosing key financial information.
Michael Farris, who represents the state-run religious broadcaster in the suit, is the former chief executive of the powerful right-wing legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, and is a former CEO of the powerful right-wing legal group Alliance Defending Freedom. It is also the driving force behind the “parental rights” movement, which seeks to limit this. In the classroom. Like the conservative “parental rights” movement, pushing to repeal the Johnson Amendment could chip away at the legal barrier separating church and state.
In the short term, Seidel said, an overhaul of this provision would allow churches to effectively function as super packs, accepting and discharging tax-deductible contributions from politically motivated donors. He said it could be used for political purposes. In such a scenario, Seidel warns, churches could be exposed to the same financial disclosures that superpacs face.
“The church could be the subject of a lawsuit, but then who would run the IRS? Who would enforce it?” Seidel said. “It’s going to be the Trump administration.”
